coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Helsinki.
5.  On 6 February 1997 the applicant was questioned as a suspect regarding an aggravated tax offence.
6.  The charges became pending before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 17 November 1997.
7.  In the period between 20 March 1998 and 17 May 2001 the bailiff unsuccessfully tried to reach the applicant at least three times: once in March 1998 at an address in Helsinki and twice, in January and June 1999, via the post box used by the applicant's company in Helsinki. It appears from the documents provided that the applicant called the bailiff on or after 20 March 1998 informing him of a new address outside Helsinki. However, there is no indication that the bailiff tried to reach him at that or any other address than those mentioned above.
8.  As is customary in cases where a person cannot be found by the bailiff, a warrant for the applicant's arrest was issued on 24 June 1999. The warrant was subsequently renewed at regular intervals.
9.  On 17 May 2001, while serving a prior prison sentence, the applicant was located by the bailiff and served with the summons.
10.  The District Court held preparatory hearings on 5 December 2002 and 11 February 2003. The main hearing was organised over two days, on 24 and 26 March 2003. The applicant and four witnesses were heard. Two of those witnesses testified on the applicant's behalf.
11.  On 5 May 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant of an accounting offence and aggravated tax fraud. The charges with regard to a third offence had been withdrawn due to its having become time-barred. The applicant was sentenced to seven months' imprisonment.
12.   In his appeal of 1 June 2003 the applicant requested an oral hearing, at which the four previously heard witnesses would be heard on the same matters as at first instance. In the same observations, however, he stated that, due to the length of time that had passed, the witnesses had not been able to recall, before the District Court, the relevant events which had taken place from 1992 to 1994. He also argued that the charges should be dismissed owing to the length of the proceedings. In his additional observations of 6 July 2004, the applicant requested that the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) hear two entirely new witnesses.
13.  On 29 June 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected the request for an oral hearing as manifestly unnecessary since no issue had arisen as to the assessment of the credibility of the oral evidence and as the matter could be decided on the basis of the written material presented during the proceedings. The lower court's judgment was upheld but instead of an unconditional prison term of seven months the applicant was sentenced to 180 hours of community service.
14.  On 29 August 2005 the applicant requested leave to appeal. The request was denied on 7 February 2006 by the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen).
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Lahti.
5.  On 12 October 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police as a suspect in a number of aggravated narcotics offences which had allegedly been committed on 10 December 1999. The offences had been reported to the police on 5 October 2000. The pre-trial investigation was completed on 21 March 2001.
6.  The case was examined and decided by the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) with regard to some of the defendants in May 2001. The charges against the applicant and one other person were removed from the docket for the time being at the public prosecutor's request because H., a witness, had not been located to appear in court.
7.  On 15 April 2002 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant and the other remaining defendant.
8.  On 15 February 2004 H. was summoned to appear before the court on 12 May 2004. That hearing was cancelled as H. was in prison awaiting trial in Sweden. The hearing eventually took place on 11 August 2004. During the hearing H. refused to elaborate on the matter and his pre-trial records were read out to the court.
9.  On the same date the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. In its judgment the court stated, in reply to the complaint made by the applicant's co-defendant, that when assessed as a whole, the proceedings had lasted longer than usual. However, the delay had been attributable to the legal excuse of a witness, which had prevented the case from being finalised earlier.
10.  On 15 May 2006 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), having held an oral hearing, upheld the lower court's judgment. As witness H. was again unavailable for the hearing, despite several previous attempts by the court to reach him, the District Court recordings of his statements were played back during the hearing.
11.  In its decision the court noted that there were no reasons in the co-defendant's case to mitigate the punishment based on the long time that had passed since the offences. It further noted that both defendants had previously been sentenced many times to unconditional prison sentences. Taking that into account the court found that the length of the sentence awarded by the District Court struck a fair balance between the act committed, the motives for that act and other aspects of their guilt.
12.  On 10 October 2006 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.
4.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1934 respectively and live in Makedonski Brod.
5.  On 12 March 1996 the applicants brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”) claiming an annual leave allowance (регрес за годишен одмор) for 1995.
6. On 18 April 1996 the then Kičevo Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) ruled in favour of the applicants, ordering the Ministry to pay them the amount claimed. The decision was given in the Ministry's absence, although summoned properly. It became final on 27 May 1996.
7. On 27 June 1997 the applicants requested enforcement of this decision. This request was granted on 29 September 1997. On 5 December 1997 the Attorney-General (Јавен Правобранител) objected to the enforcement order, arguing, inter alia, that it had not been given an opportunity to participate in the substantive proceedings as the Ministry's legal representative. Its objection was dismissed by decisions of 11 March 1999 and 8 March 2000 respectively. In or about May 2000 the amount due was transferred on the applicants' accounts.
8.  On 3 September 2000 the Attorney-General requested that the first-instance court remove the clause attesting that its decision of 18 April 1996 had become final (“the clause”, се брише клаузулата на правосилност) since it had not been summoned, as the Ministry's legal representative, to participate in those proceedings.
9. On 25 September 2000 the first-instance court dismissed this request. The Attorney-General appealed. On 12 June 2001 the Bitola Court of Appeal accepted its appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 6 July 2001 the first-instance court accepted the request and removed the clause. The parties were advised to appeal against this decision. The applicants refused to be served with this decision. They did not appeal.
10. On 28 November 2001 the Attorney-General appealed against the first-instance court's decision of 18 April 1996. The applicants refused to have a copy of this appeal communicated to them.
11. On 15 January 2002 the Bitola Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney-General's appeal and quashed the decision of 18 April 1996.
12. On 27 January 2003 the proceedings were stayed. On the applicants' appeal, on 3 April 2003 the Bitola Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for re-examination.
13. On 5 September 2003 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants' claim since no such allowance had been paid in 1995 and no funds had been allocated for that purpose in the State's budget.
14. On 19 November 2003 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicants of 15 October 2003. This decision was served on them on 10 December 2003. On 6 February 2004 the public prosecutor informed the applicants that there were no grounds for lodging a request for the protection of legality with the Supreme Court.
15.  In separate proceedings, the State requested that the applicants pay back the amount awarded by the first-instance court's decision of 18 April 1996. This request was accepted by court decisions of 7 May and 6 December 2004 respectively.
4.  The applicants are spouses. The first applicant was born in 1930 and the second applicant was born in 1940. They live in Detva.
5.  On 8 January 1997 the applicants claimed that the joint ownership of a real property should be dissolved and that the property in issue should be distributed between them and a third co-owner.
6.  On 24 February 1997 the Zvolen District Court delivered a judgment against which the defendant appealed.
7.  The judgment was quashed by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court on 12 June 1997.
8.  On 28 August 2002 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision of 19 July 2002 ordering each of the applicants to pay an advance on expert's fees. The second applicant unsuccessfully complained that she was not obliged to pay that sum (the equivalent of 92 euros (EUR) at that time). Subsequently, enforcement of the above decision was ordered. The second applicant submits that she was thereby put in a difficult situation as her only income was an invalidity pension.
9.  On 22 April 2002 the first applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about excessive delays in the Zvolen District Court's proceedings. The Constitutional Court asked him to rectify shortcomings in his submission. On 23 May 2002 the first applicant appointed a lawyer to represent him in the constitutional proceedings. On 30 May 2002 the lawyer, on behalf of the first applicant, complied with the Constitutional Court's request.
10.  On 8 January 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the first applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in that it had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. It awarded the first applicant 25,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of EUR 607 at that time), ordered the District Court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the first applicant's costs.
11.  On 24 June 2003 the Zvolen District Court decided to transfer the case to the Lučenec District Court.
12.  The file was transferred to the Lučenec District Court on 7 August 2003. The latter delivered a judgment on the merits on 3 October 2005. The applicants appealed and filed additional claims for compensation.
13.  The file was transferred to the court of appeal on 18 November 2005. On 15 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment, noting that it could not examine any additional claims which the plaintiffs had not submitted to the first-instance court. The decision was served on the applicants on 27 March 2006.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1938, the second in 1962, the third in 1959, the fourth in 1940, and the fifth in 1939. All applicants live in the town of Makeyevka, Ukraine.
6.  The applicants are former employees of the State company Shachta imeni K.I. Pochenkova (“the company”).
7.  The applicants instituted proceedings against the company in the Chervonogvardeysky District Court of Makeyevka (“the first-instance court”) requesting it to recalculate the amount of the salary paid to them from January 1997 to October 2001 and compensate them for losses sustained as a result of alleged miscalculations made by the company. They also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court allowed their claims (see Annex 1).
8.  The Chervonogvardeysky District Bailiffs' Service of Makeyevka initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments given in the applicants' favour.
9.  On an unspecified date the company was liquidated. The applicants requested the first-instance court to change the debtor in enforcement proceedings to another State company. The court allowed their requests and changed the debtor to the State company Ukrvuglerestrukturizatsiya. The Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the rulings of the first-instance court and rejected the applicants' requests. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the Court of Appeal (for details see Annex 2).
10.  Later, the applicants lodged extraordinary appeals against the final decisions given in their cases by the Supreme Court. However, their appeals were unsuccessful.
11.  On 3 June 2008 the State Bailiffs' Service returned the enforcement writs to the applicants and terminated the enforcement proceedings. The judgments in the applicants' favour remain unenforced.
4.  The applicants were born in 1939 and 1957 respectively and live in Pavlograd and Slovyansk, Ukraine.
5.  By a judgment of 7 June 2001 the Pavlograd Town Court (Павлоградський міський суд) awarded Mr Savinskiy 6,376.66 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments to be paid by his former employer, the State company Pershotravenskoye shakhtostroyitelnoye upravleniye-4.
6.  By a judgment of 24 December 1997 the Slovyansk Town Court (Павлоградський міський суд) awarded Mr Shevchenko UAH 1,829.89[2] in salary arrears to be paid by his former employer, the Soda Plant (ВАТ «Содовий завод»), a joint stock company in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital. By a judgment of 17 July 2000 the same court additionally ordered the debtor company to pay Mr Shevchenko UAH 7,173.09[3] in payments owed to him upon retirement.
7.  After the above judgments had become final, the relevant departments of the State Bailiffs' Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.
8.  Subsequently, the insolvency and later the liquidation proceedings against the debtor companies were instituted and the State Bailiffs' Service terminated the enforcement proceedings. The above-mentioned liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending.
9.  The judgments in the applicants' favour remain unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  In 1952, a property situated in Bucharest at 10 Negustori Street and belonging to I.A. was seized by the State under Decree no. 224/1951, following an alleged unpaid debt. I.A.’s only heir was his wife, the applicant being the latter’s sole legatee.
The property consisted of a building placed on a 458 sq. m plot of land. The building was divided into five apartments.
6.  On 10 July 1996 the applicant requested the authorities to authorise her to recover the whole property and to refrain from selling it to the tenants under Law no. 112/1995. However, on 9 December 1996, 12 March, 30 September and 7 October 1997 and 22 October 1998 the F. company, a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, sold the five apartments with the appurtenant land to the then tenants under Law no. 112/1995.
7.  On 5 June 2001 the applicant, in her capacity as legatee of I.A.’s wife, claimed restitution or compensation, under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State, for a plot of 460 sq. m of land and for the constructions on it situated in Bucharest at 10 Negustori Street. It appears from the file that she did not receive any answer.
8.  On 6 August 2002 the applicant brought court proceedings to have the sales of the five apartments declared null and void. She considered that the seizure by the State had been unlawful.
9.  On 16 June 2003 the Bucharest Court of First Instance dismissed the action, considering that the third parties had made the purchase in good faith, although the authorities were in bad faith since they had sold the property before resolving her request to recover it. The court also acknowledged that the seizure by the State of the whole property had been unlawful and that the applicant was the legatee of I.A.’s wife. However, relying on section 46 § 2 of Law no. 10/2001, it considered that the applicant had not also proved the buyers’ bad faith.
10.  Two subsequent appeals by the applicant were dismissed, on 14 October 2003 by the Bucharest County Court and on 11 February 2005 by a final judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Otwock.
6.  On an unspecified date in January 1987 the applicant's former husband instituted civil proceedings for division of matrimonial property.
7.  During the proceedings the Otwock District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided on several occasions, of its own motion, to stay the proceedings due to the fact that the plaintiff had not paid the relevant costs arising in the course of the proceedings.
8.  On numerous occasions the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings and to proceed speedily with the claim.
9.  On 5 March 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court (Prezes Sądu Wojewódzkiego) about the delay in the proceedings.
10.  On 8 April 2004 the proceedings were resumed.
11.  On 20 October 2006 the Otwock District Court gave a decision ordering the plaintiff to pay a certain amount to the applicant. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 29 October 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) partly amended the first-instance decision and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.
13.  On 15 February 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
14.  The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Otwock District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
15.  On 6 May 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It limited its examination of the length‑of‑proceedings issue to the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act and stressed that the Act could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court during the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act (that is after 17 September 2004), the Regional Court found that there were no delays for which the District Court could be held responsible. It held that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Karacabey.
5.  On 17 October 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of armed robbery and murder. On 27 October 1996 he was placed in detention on remand. On 4 November 1996 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant in the Bursa Assize Court. On 27 November 1997 the applicant was released pending trial. Subsequently, on 29 June 2001 the Bursa Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him and this judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 March 2002.
6.  On 5 August 2002 the applicant applied to the Bursa Assize Court, seeking compensation for both non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.
7.  On 23 January 2003 the Bursa Assize Court awarded the applicant 358,071,000 Turkish[1] liras (TRL) for pecuniary damage and TRL 3,000,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also decided that no default interest should be applied.
8.  On 31 March 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.
9.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant applied to the Bursa Enforcement Office and requested the payment of TRL 6,022,015,000, including interest running from the date of the judgment. On 10 August 2004 the Treasury objected to the interest rate, but paid the amount of TRL 5,727,000,000 which was not in dispute. Following the objection of the Treasury, proceedings commenced before the Bursa Enforcement Court to determine the exact amount and interest rate to be paid by the Treasury. On 26 October 2004 the Bursa Enforcement Court dismissed the objection of the Treasury. Subsequently, on 25 February 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, holding that the interest rate should be calculated on the basis of that laid down in the Budget Law. The case was then remitted to the Enforcement Court. Following a re-examination of the case, and based on an expert report, on 10 June 2005 the Enforcement Court ordered an additional payment of TRL 479,450,000 to the applicant. This amount was paid in August 2005. Consequently, the domestic authorities had applied an interest rate of 50% per annum between 23 January 2003 and 1 January 2004, and 15% per annum as from 1 January 2004.
5.  On 23 October 1984 the Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud) in Belgrade issued a judgment stating, inter alia, that the applicant was the owner of 36% of a flat and a garage located in Belgrade. The remaining 64% was determined to be the property of D.S., the applicant's former partner. On 25 June 1985 this judgment became final.
6.  In a separate set of proceedings, on 30 March 1987, the Fourth Municipal Court (Četvrti opštinski sud) in Belgrade ruled that the physical division of the said real estate was impossible, that a public auction should be held instead, and that the proceeds thereof should be divided among the former partners accordingly.
7.  On 16 November 1987 this decision became final.
8.  On 18 May 1990 the Fourth Municipal Court in Belgrade (hereinafter “the enforcement court”) accepted the applicant's request and ordered the enforcement of the above decision dated 30 March 1987.
9.  At the hearing held on 2 September 1996 the applicant offered to buy the 64% of the flat in question owned by D.S. and thereby become its sole owner. On the same date the enforcement court accepted this offer, “awarded” the flat (“dosudio nepokretnosi”) to the applicant and set the price at 25,126.22 Dinars. D.S. subsequently filed an appeal against this decision.
10.  Following a remittal, on 26 April 2002 the District Court upheld the decision of the enforcement court and it thereby became final.
11.  On 3 March 2004 the Supreme Court accepted the request for the protection of legality (zahtev za zaštitu zakonitosti) filed by the Chief Public Prosecutor personally. It quashed the lower courts' decisions and remitted the case to the enforcement court for reconsideration. It would appear that the Supreme Court's decision was served on the applicant by 12 January 2005.
12.  Following their separation in 1978, D.S. retained sole possession of the flat in question while the applicant appears to have had no access since then.
13.  On 20 October 2006 the applicant was given back the nominal value of the amount paid pursuant to the decision of 2 September 1996 (see paragraph 9 above).
14.  On 2 September 2007 the applicant died.
15.  On 21 September 2007 the Fourth Municipal Court suspended the proceedings pending the determination of the applicant's legal heirs.
16.  On 10 October 2008 the applicant's son, as her only legal heir, requested the continuation of the proceedings.
17.  It would appear that there have been no further developments in the case since then.